CVRZ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

CVRZ, a citizen of Zimbabwe, arrived in Australia in December 2007 and has lived there continuously since then, except for a brief return to Zimbabwe in July 2009. He was granted a protection visa on 4 February 2009, but was convicted of numerous criminal offences in Australia between 2009 and 2018, including an assault occasioning bodily harm for which he was sentenced to twelve months imprisonment. His protection visa was cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) on 27 September 2018 because he did not pass the character test. CVRZ sought revocation of the cancellation decision but was unsuccessful. He applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for review, which was also unsuccessful. He then sought judicial review of the AAT's decision in the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the AAT constructively failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not meaningfully considering CVRZ's claims of harm if returned to Zimbabwe, whether the AAT's finding that CVRZ would have access to economic support in Zimbabwe was based on no evidence, and whether the AAT's decision was unreasonable. The Court found that the AAT had not constructively failed to exercise its jurisdiction, that the AAT's finding was not based on no evidence, and that the AAT's decision was not unreasonable. The Court held that the AAT had considered CVRZ's claims of harm and had given reasons for rejecting them. The Court also held that the AAT's finding that CVRZ would have access to economic support in Zimbabwe was supported by the evidence before it, and that the AAT's decision was not unreasonable because it had considered all relevant matters and had given reasons for its decision.

The appeal was dismissed and CVRZ was ordered to pay the Minister's costs of the appeal. The Court found that the AAT had not constructively failed to exercise its jurisdiction, that the AAT's finding was not based on no evidence, and that the AAT's decision was not unreasonable. The Court held that the AAT had considered CVRZ's claims of harm and had given reasons for rejecting them. The Court also held that the AAT's finding that CVRZ would have access to economic support in Zimbabwe was supported by the evidence before it, and that the AAT's decision was not unreasonable because it had considered all relevant matters and had given reasons for its decision.